At a human resources conference yesterday, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer finally commented on the massive controversy generated after the Silicon Valley Internet company decided to end its work-from-home offering to its employees.

News of the change came in February after AllThingsD published a hopelessly awkward memo on the new dictate that resulted in a firestorm of debate.

That was no surprise, since the missive was confusingly penned by HR head Jackie Reses, who noted, in part: “Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together.” Along with an incomprehensible aside about the “cable guy,” there were few details.

And because Yahoo PR’s goal is to not comment, except when pushing shiny new products, it was disinclined to say anything at all once the memo was public. ATD reported initially it was a couple hundred employees, but the memo made it unclear who would be impacted and how. Yahoo later made an unusually bloodless statement that work from home was not what was right for the company at that time, given its need to turn itself around.

Mayer underscored that point in her keynote speech, with Fortune reporting that she put up an image of a purple elephant with WFH letters on its side and said, “I need to talk about the elephant in the room.”

She also tried to push blame onto, well, I am not sure whom, noting, “It was wrongly perceived as an industry narrative.” This mistakes-were-made tactic was clever, but the situation spun out of control simply due to the fact that Mayer was tin-eared on a hot-button issue and was poorly advised not to give a quick and cogent explanation of it at the time, causing a lot of unnecessary external and internal confusion and worry.

What was too bad was Mayer had a valid enough point — even if it was very harsh medicine to end the popular policy — that Yahoo probably needs all hands on deck right now to return to innovative relevance. She also said in her speech that while “people are more productive when they’re alone … they’re more collaborative and innovative when they’re together. Some of the best ideas come from pulling two different ideas together.”

As I said, it’s an excellent point, even if how Mayer delivered her message turned out to be a lesson as a new CEO in how it’s not what you say, but how you say it. And, of course, when.

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg might still be trying to figure out the social networking giant’s mobile monetization strategy, but there’s one thing she has locked: The top spot on two of the most important bestseller lists at the same time.

This week, for the first time, her “Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead” ranked No. 1 on the influential New York Times list for hardcover nonfiction, as well as for combined print and e-book nonfiction. The list, which appears in this coming Sunday’s issue of the New York Times Book Review, actually reflects sales for the week ending March 16, 2013.

“Lean In” has been on Amazon’s top 100 list of all books for much longer — in fact, for 32 days. The tome on the many difficulties faced by women in the workforce reached No. 1 status several weeks ago.

The official release date of the book was March 11, which was followed by a publicity blitz of massive proportions, including the cover of Time magazine, huge takeouts in innumerable newspapers, and laudatory television pieces on “60 Minutes” and with Oprah Winfrey.

“Lean In” has also attracted a huge dollop of controversy, with everyone and their mother (and my mother, Lucky, too) arguing over its merits, as well as its message — including whether Sandberg blamed women too much for the lack of advancement in the executive ranks.

She doesn’t, actually — if you read it, which many pundits appear to not have done. But that has not stopped the rigorous and welcome debate over the important issue, which seems to be exactly what Sandberg was aiming for.

Sales appear to have been widespread, but seem to also be helped by big purchases by companies such as Cisco, which are encouraging employees to read it.

Former Vice President Al Gore took to the stage at the SXSW interactive festival today to tell a packed auditorium at the Austin Convention Center about the future.

No, really, “The Future,” which is the name of his new book, with the heavy-duty subhead “Six Drivers of Global Change.”

Among these drivers are — no surprise for him — severe environmental damage, as well as overpopulation and changes in biology via technology, and all the problems that come with that. Among the other critical issues, Gore also noted money politics, the ever-more-sophisticated antibiotics for livestock, and the reliance on supercomputers for stock market trading.

Gore told AllThingsD editor Walt Mossberg in an interview that some of these global developments were both a “peril and opportunity.”

But, in all, it’s a pretty depressing picture overall that he is painting, despite pointing out that knowing you have a problem is the first step.

“Our country is in very serious trouble,” he said. “But that does not mean I am not optimistic.”

Which is right before Gore started reeling off the problematic pressure that money has put on politics. “Our democracy has been hacked,” he said.

“American democracy has never been perfect, but more often than not, the will of the people did drive policy,” he added. “Congress today is utterly incapable of passing any reform of any significance unless they get permission from special interests.”

For example: “The NRA is a fraud,” about the National Rifle Association and its links to gun manufacturers.

“I wish I could get you to be more outspoken,” joked Mossberg.

“Timidity has always been an issue with me,” joshed Gore back.

Gore, who often likes to talk in full and very extended paragraphs, slowly worked through the rest of the list, before he got to the issue of spider goats.

Indeed, spider goats, which are created using genetics to mix the genes of spiders and goats.

“You can’t farm spiders for a number of reasons, so people are talking the genes from spiders and splicing them into goats,” explained Gore. “They look like goats, then these spider goats secret silk through their udders. ‘Everyone okay with that?’”

Um, no.

Still, Gore added that there are “blessings” that come with genetic engineering, including the elimination of a range of devastating diseases.

Gore soon moved onto the issue for which he is best known — global warming — after his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” gained worldwide attention.

“It’s not me saying it — I’m delivering the message. Every single national academy of science on the planet agrees with this, he said, before moving onto the recent devastation of Hurricane Sandy on the East Coast. “Mother Nature has the most powerful voice in this debate.”

But Mossberg and Gore soon parried over the sale of Gore’s media company, Current, to Al Jazeera.

You sold your network to Al Jazeera, which is owned by a government that’s a big oil producer,” asked Mossberg. “How could you do that?”

While hemming and hawing about that, Gore then came back with a good one: “I don’t ask you why you continue working for Rupert Murdoch.”

This meant war, since this site is owned by News Corp. “Last I checked, he’s not in the oil business,” countered Mossberg.

“He’s also not strictly in the news business, either,” said Gore.

Oh dear, time to get back to global warming, because it’s getting hot in here.

It was then onto a short Q&A, with one question about the Internet — an issue near and dear to Gore’s heart. In truth, despite all the jokes, he was critical when a senator to turning the Internet over to the people, from its origins as a government project.

And in this Gore finally pointed to a bright glimmer of hope. “The future of democracy,” he said, “may well depend on the continued freedom and independence of the Internet.”

RELATED POSTS:

• How One Boring Company Pulled Off the Perfect SXSW Troll
• Attention SXSW Hipsters: Watch This Video and Get Some Much-Needed Help
• WordPress’s Matt Mullenweg Talks About Future of Blogging in a SXSW Pedicab
• Google’s Smack-Talking Shoe of South by Southwest
• Some More Inconvenient Truths (Including Spider Goats): Al Gore Talks About “The Future” at SXSW
• Moon Shot: Earthbound Investor Milner Talks About Origins of the Universe at SXSW
• People of South by Southwest — Please, Free Grumpy Cat
• MakerBot Unveils Desktop Scanner Prototype for Amateur 3-D Printing
• Ready, Set, Collaboratively Design a 3-D Printed Rocket
• This Year at SXSW, the Next Killer App … Maybe Isn’t
• Artificial Intelligence, Al Gore, Modern Blogging and More: Where to Find ATD at SXSW

Lost in the sauce of the national work-from-home debate of last week that engulfed all things Yahoo, was a fascinating tidbit that several employees passed on to me from a recent Friday FYI meeting at its Silicon Valley HQ.

At the gathering, CEO Marissa Mayer talked briefly about the new telecommuting arrangements for some staffers, including the controversial new work-from-home memo that HR head Jackie Reses had issued that day.

But when Reses — who also wears another corporate hat as head of M&A at Yahoo — spoke she mentioned to the crowd that Yahoo was working on two “significant” acquisitions and about six smaller talent “acqhires.”

“It was kind of odd to telegraph it in such a big forum,” said one employee of Reses’ comments at the meeting in late February.

The revelation was unusual, to be sure, but perhaps not a surprise, given the recent run-up in Yahoo stock, its healthy cash position and, most of all, its need to add meaningful growth to the current efforts at turnaround.

And while some of its recent buys have been interesting and focused on improving its moribund mobile efforts, they have also been very small. And, as one high-ranking exec there told me, they “don’t move the needle in the way we need to in bringing in senior talent or loads of users or serious revenue.”

Indeed, while Yahoo shares have benefited greatly from the impressive performance by Alibaba Group in China, which is clearly on a roll, many think that showing actual improvement in its core business will be critical in the months ahead.

While making changes to Yahoo’s homepage and email, as well as cutting products, has been done, it is not yet clear what the impact is; the changes are aimed more at holding on to consumers rather than exciting them with new offerings.

Yahoo could also create its own new products to wow the masses, but that has been harder for it over the years. (Remember Livestand? Yeah, not so much.) In any case, an innovation infusion of such a large magnitude will take some time, given Mayer has to get the right people into place to do so.

Thus, a big purchase of an exciting new company with prominent leadership seems more likely than not and sooner than later. While Mayer has not articulated her vision for the new Yahoo in anything more than general ways, what she buys will say a lot.

Thus, sources said that Yahoo has been looking at a range of such acquisitions, in a number of categories such as advertising tech, mobile monetization and, of course, consumer “daily delight,” which is a phrase Mayer has used a lot.

It would be bold if Mayer went all out and made a mega-buy that would shake up the competitive landscape. My first choice for that is Pinterest, the scrapbooking phenom that was just valued at $2.5 billion in a new funding round. Mayer has also shown a lot of interest in blogging superstar Tumblr, while at both Google and Yahoo, as well as Foursquare, the well-known location app. Of course, there is also the troubled gaming giant, Zynga.

All are very pricey and would face rival interest, but such a move would be akin to Facebook’s billion-dollar blockbuster purchase of Instagram. Many now think that was prescient and cheap, given how important mobile photos are to the current digital ecosystem.

The list of possible big deals goes on: Hulu (which needs a tasty content element to make sense) as a video play; Millennial Media or Jumptap for mobile advertising; Quora for social answers; Flipboard for social media consumption; Rubicon or PubMatic, for ad targeting; and many more.

But all of those begin at the billion-dollar or more range and I have checked with a number of these and come up peanuts. Still, there are a whole lot of choices for Mayer and Yahoo in the $200 million to $500 million price range.

Here, Yahoo has the financial strength to make at least two of these significant purchases that Reses mentioned, as well as developing a much better reputation for Yahoo to keep real talent interested.

As one prominent startup exec, who had told me he never would consider selling to Yahoo in the past, said recently: “They are no longer complete losers, although Facebook and Google and Apple and Amazon are still cooler.”

Hey, it’s a compliment, even if it’s a back-handed one, so it will be interesting to see who finds Yahoo cool enough.

Video conferencing company Blue Jeans Network, which is obviously a big supporter of working from home for employees, is putting its money where its telecommuting mouth is to speak out on the debate that was spurred by Yahoo CEO Marissa’s Mayer new rule to ban the practice at her company.

Thus, the startup is putting up a billboard on Highway 101, just north of San Francisco Airport on the tech-commuting path, which you can see above. Calling itself the “The unofficial sponsor of WFH,” it urges Mayer to call the company — “We can help.”

(Cheeky! I like it.)

In a blog post about the controversy, Blue Jeans noted:

“What’s right for Yahoo, however, is against almost every workforce trend. Telecommuting is here to stay. In competitive hiring environments, working from home is undoubtedly an enticing perk that employers can extend to tip the scales.”

Ironically, a Blue Jeans spokesperson pointed out to me that next week is Telework Week.

At a Morgan Stanley investment conference today, the affable Yahoo CFO Ken Goldman put in an appearance to talk about life at Yahoo since he got there last fall.

Unfortunately, he said almost nothing new in an onstage interview and, more importantly, did not address the hot-button controversy around the work-from-home ban that CEO Marissa Mayer instituted last week.

To be fair, that’s because Goldman was not asked by anyone about the issue, which is perhaps not a surprise at these hand-holding investor events. But he did make a veiled reference when touting its “strong leadership” now.

“What gives people confidence is that we’re making decisions,” he said. “The worst thing to do in a company is to waffle.” But Goldman then added obliquely that some people like those decisions and “some people don’t.”

No, they don’t! Woo-hee, has this one blown up!

The work-from-home debate has certainly exploded across the landscape this week, after an edict to eliminate the long-time employee policy at Yahoo, especially since most other Internet companies tout flexible work arrangements.

But, apparently, Mayer thinks Yahoos have abused the privilege — she noted at an employee meeting last week that VPN logs showed work-at-home staff did not sign on enough — and a Yahoo internal memo said that working “physically together” was the way to reenergize the lagging fortunes at the company.

Opinions inside Yahoo about the topic have been mixed but heated, essentially pitting employees against each other in an awkward way. But the reaction from outside the company has been decidedly negative.

At the Morgan event in San Francisco, Goldman instead focused on the sunnier side of the street at the Silicon Valley Internet giant, noting the Mayer regime was focused on increasing user engagement, international presence and broadening its demographics.

“The thing that just struck me over and over is how much has been done by this company that is really new,” said Goldman, pointing inevitably to the new free food policy — which has long been common across Silicon Valley — as well as a quarterly goal system, employee reviews, weekly FYI meetings and more.

Referring to internal polls showing increased confidence among staff, he added: “What really strikes me is how much has been done to really improve the quality of life at Yahoo.”

Goldman also touched on the need to increase revenue, spur innovation and also some upgrades of core products such as Yahoo Mail and its famous homepage, although leaving out that this had been in the works before the new leadership team was in place.

He also talked, as Mayer has a lot, about the importance of mobile to the future there, noting that the mobile revenue was still “modest.” (Goldman declined to say just how modest, but I posted that depressing number here.)

“We just got into this is a major way,” he said, asking investors for patience to get up to mobile speed at Yahoo. “I think we have been clear it will take us some time, but we have taken some positive steps.”

At first I thought it would fun to debate you, but then I realized I would just get bored.

– Blake Krikorian, in response to Robert X. Cringely’s Jan. 1 post, “In the Land of the Blind Krikorian Could Become King”

Who won the first Presidential debate last night? According to the cable news pundits, the winner was Republican candidate Gov. Mitt Romney. The other winner, according to Twitter’s peanut gallery, was Sesame Street’s Big Bird, who came up in Romney’s pitch for cutting PBS funding.

But the other other winner was video streaming. This year, you definitely didn’t need an old-fangled television to watch the debates, with online offerings ranging from simple videos to live fact-checking and commentary.

YouTube’s politics channel carried videos from multiple sources, including the New York Times and Univision. And a YouTube spokesperson said they had “millions of live streamed views of the debates, and one of the highest number of concurrent streams ever for a YouTube live stream.”

(Updated 4:59 p.m. PT): Ustream has added their numbers to the fray, reporting 3.5 million total video streams of the debate and debate-related videos yesterday. However, bear in mind that that number covers both live and recorded video views, not just live streaming.

Meanwhile, CNN reported that their debate videos were at least started nearly five million times, with 1.2 million people watching live worldwide. A network spokesperson added that yesterday was one of CNN’s best for live video this year — second only to Whitney Houston’s funeral, which attracted 700,000 more viewers.

By contrast, Nielsen reported that 67 million people who did have those old-fangled television contraptions tuned in to watch the debates that way.

Other online offerings included video and interactive features on AOL’s network of Patch, AOL.com and the Huffington Post, which brought in 400,000 streaming viewers. And The Wall Street Journal’s various video streams across sites like YouTube, Hulu and UStream, as well as on WSJ.com and TV set-top devices like Roku, brought in more than 100,000 viewers.

Hulu also offered video from ABC News and Fox News, but a site spokesperson declined to share numbers about their performance.

Aereo, which also did not share statistics about their video performance, offered New Yorkers two hours of free access to their online live TV streaming service in order to watch the debate.

While political pundits will be chewing over the first Presidential debate last night, techies are more likely to be pondering Gov. Mitt Romney’s dismissal of Tesla.

The company is the maker of high-end electric cars, many of which have been bought by rich geeks in Silicon Valley. But the Republican candidate dubbed Tesla a “loser” in an attack on tax breaks President Barack Obama gave to green energy companies.

“You put $90 billion — like 50 years’ worth of breaks — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1,” said Romney. “I mean, I had a friend who said, you don’t just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers.”

Solyndra went bankrupt, while Ener1 and Fisker suffered definite financial distress.

And while Tesla has also seen its share of start-up troubles and had to cut 2012 forecasts, it seems to be recovering. In a blog post earlier yesterday, in fact, CEO Elon Musk said Tesla would start paying back hundreds of millions of dollars in loans from the Department of Energy early.

Not soon enough for Romney, it seems.

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg has written a book on challenges facing women in the workplace that is expected to be published next year by Knopf.

Titled “Lean In,” the book is not a memoir, but a “call to action” with a lot of research and data, laced with anecdotes of the experience of one of Silicon Valley’s most high-profile female executives and also many other women.

“I believe that the world would be a better place if half our institutions were run by women, and half our homes were run by men,” said Sandberg in an email to me earlier this week. “The book contains practical advice for women — and the men who want to help them — on how to lean in and close the gap.”

Juggling leadership roles and family has been a central topic of Sandberg’s in numerous speeches she has given in recent years.

Among the key themes she has outlined — most prominently in a TEDTalk in 2010, which is embedded below — is the lack of progress for women in top positions and the loss to society when half the population holds only one-fifth of the top jobs across key industries.

The title comes from her advice in these speeches for women to lean in to their work rather than lean back, as many tend to do for a variety of reasons at key points in their careers.

In the speeches, Sandberg — who worked in a high-ranking job at Google and also did a stint in government at the Treasury Department in the Clinton administration — also advised women not to “leave before you leave” a job.

In one speech, she said:

“So, my heartfelt message is: Don’t leave before you leave. Don’t lean back, lean in. Keep your foot on the gas pedal until the day you have to make a decision. That’s the only way to ensure you even have a decision to make.”

The book’s publication, largely due to Sandberg’s prominence, is likely to reignite a heated debate over the longstanding issue about women and work. That includes in tech, where there are still a paucity of female CEOs, board members and venture capitalists.

Speaking of debate, publishing such a book — or being seen as doing anything not related directly to Facebook’s business — at such a dicey time for the company is sure to attract some negative attention for Sandberg and possibly Facebook.

That’s especially true after its botched public offering, which has been followed by a deep drop in the stock to half its initial IPO price and worries about its core business growth.

To be fair, the ideas in “Lean In” have been developed over many years and Sandberg has long noted that the discussion of these issues is too important to wait.

Sandberg said she finished the book well before Facebook’s recent tumultuous IPO and on her own time.

She added that she would eventually promote it on her own vacation time, too, and that all her profits will go to charities that support women. But Sandberg did not volunteer the advance she got paid for “Lean In.”

Along with that possible (and inevitable) why-aren’t-you-fixing-the-stock criticism, penning such a book might also further encourage persistent rumors that Sandberg will eventually leave Facebook, including to pursue a political office.

Not true, said Sandberg, who said firmly that she plans to stay put at Facebook as the No. 2 exec to co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. He has apparently known about the book project since its beginning and has encouraged it.

To complete the book — which is now being edited — Sandberg worked with a full-time writer, Nell Scovell, as well as a researcher, Marianne Cooper.

Scovell, a journalist and longtime television writer in Hollywood, started helping Sandberg with her speeches about two years ago. Cooper is a sociologist at the Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University and is the author of the forthcoming University of California Press book, “Cut Adrift: Families in Insecure Times.”

Until the book is out, here’s a taste of what Sandberg has had to say so far on women and leadership at both her TEDTalk in December of 2010 and also at a commencement speech at Barnard College last May:

CNET nabbed an exclusive interview with one of the nine jurors in the high-profile and complex trial.

The jury largely handed over a victory to Apple in the patent infringement case, along with an award of just over $1 billion.

Manuel Ilagan — who said debates among jurors were at times “heated,” in spite of the quickness of the verdict — told CNET that “Samsung’s internal emails about incorporating some of Apple’s technology into its devices, and the evasive way Samsung executives answered questions, was damning.”

Ilagan also denied that the jury was favoring Apple in any kind of “hometown bias.”

“We weren’t going for Apple,” he told CNET. “We weren’t thinking Apple or Samsung.”

The interview is well worth a full read here.

Reuters also talked to another key juror, foreman Velvin Hogan, about making sure Samsung knew it had done wrong.

Hogan, who holds a patent himself, said the jury “wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist. We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable.”

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

Of course, because Americans now have a wide range of tools to express themselves online, the historic and surprising Supreme Court decision that has upheld the Obama administration’s controversial health care overhaul has been a perfect medium for the escalating debate.

There is already a Tumblr created today, with all kinds of funny captions and graphics about the Affordable Care Act — which includes the requirement that most Americans have health insurance — called, “When SCOTUS Upheld Obamacare.”

It entails a lot of interactive dancing and snapping of fingers, including by President Obama.

Meanwhile, culling the reaction on Twitter, BuzzFeed assembled a compilation of tweets called: “People Who Say They’re Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare.”

Like so:

Thats it! I’m moving to Canada! #Obamacare

— Amber Rose (@EmberrRose) June 28, 2012

While some who posted seemed to be kidding, most who tweeted were soon inundated by responses that, um, pointed out that Canada funds a public health care system for all its citizens.

Instant education in political science and a good roiling Web goat rodeo is #ExactlyWhyILovetheInternet.

More, of course, to come.

Without further ado, here’s one of the more controversial interviews of the 10th D: All Things Digital conference — Hollywood super-agent Ari Emanuel unplugged.

Actually, he is usually a very live wire, which the crowd at the event did not get to see burning hot until the very end, in a testy exchange with The Verge’s Josh Topolsky.

This exchange caused some level of debate online over Emanuel’s brusque manner, including some cursing. But — however riveting it is to watch their argument devolve from initially like a funny wrestling match to really pissed-off — there’s a lot more to the interview to pay mind to.

Emanuel — who co-heads William Morris Endeavor, one of Hollywood’s most important talent agencies — talked about a range of issues, from a recent investment by private equity firm Silver Lake to spur more digital initiatives, to the state of the entertainment industry, to crowdfunding movies.

But it was the topic of intellectual property piracy that got Emanuel’s content-loving juices flowing, taking particular aim at Google for not doing enough to filter out stolen copyright-protected material.

Here’s the video of the full interview:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120625/hollywoods-ari-emanuel-has-strong-opinions-about-content-the-full-d10-interview-video/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20120328/yahoo-geddon-leaders-to-debate-layoffs-asset-sales-search-deals-and-more-today-as-a-major-restructuring-looms/ http://allthingsd.com/20120328/yahoo-geddon-leaders-to-debate-layoffs-asset-sales-search-deals-and-more-today-as-a-major-restructuring-looms/#comments Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:02:15 +0000 Kara Swisher http://allthingsd.com/?p=190726

What is Yahoo?

While that has been the perennially unanswered question at the Silicon Valley Internet giant for many years, according to dozens of sources inside and outside the company, Yahoo’s leadership is now deeply embroiled in an intense — and sometimes very tense and fast-changing — debate over a number of critical issues about what is expected to be the most sweeping restructuring in its history.

Top executives at the company are conducting what is likely to be a lively all-day “offsite” meeting today (which is actually taking place on Yahoo’s Sunnyvale campus) to continue to discuss, among other things: How and where the company will make large-scale cuts in staff, which I have previously reported were coming and will perhaps be numbering in the thousands; which businesses to sell off and which to keep, including its ad tech unit; the correct structure for the reconfigured entity; and who will be left to run it all when it is all settled.

Also up for debate is the best course of a two-pronged effort — being led primarily by CFO Tim Morse and members of his corporate strategy team — to renegotiate its search and advertising partnership deal with Microsoft, while also engaging in active discussions with Google about it taking over Yahoo’s search business.

“Everything is on the table,” said one person. “And anything could be blown up by Scott.”

The Scott being referenced is new CEO Scott Thompson, who has become something of a whirling dervish since he arrived at Yahoo only three months ago from the top job at eBay’s PayPal unit.

If shaking up the place — as he has promised in public and internal statements, including a recent memo in which he wrote that “real change is coming” — was his aim, Thompson is certainly doing just that and more.

Along with immediately initiating a massive effort to figure out the best way to restructure the long-troubled and ever-meandering company and all that entails, Thompson has also been meeting players all over Silicon Valley for advice; stopping and then restarting negotiating discussions with Yahoo’s Asian partners, visiting major advertising clients; and engaging in talks with activist shareholder Dan Loeb about settling a looming proxy fight, while also packing the board with allies to help fend off said battle.

And, oh yes, he also took a little time out from his busy schedule to sue Yahoo partner Facebook for patent violations.

But the real action is the remaking of Yahoo in his image. To do so, Thompson has been furiously evaluating the entire company, with the help of Boston Consulting Group and a small group of execs, especially Morse.

While it is all still undecided, he seems to be leaning toward Yahoo as a drastically slimmed-down entity without a central product group and with a simplified structure that includes global units — such as media, commerce and sales organizations — which will again be in charge of the entire development of their offerings.

(I will note, since I have been covering Yahoo since near its founding, this is a structure that has been in place before. In other words, at least for dinosaurs like me, there is nothing new under the sun here.)

The changes being contemplated include, as I have written previously, the possible sale or drastic reconfiguration of its ad technology business, which will effect at least 1,000 employees. Another 1,500 involved in Yahoo’s search business will also be impacted, depending on talks the company has been having with Microsoft, as well as Google, about better monetization.

Such a structure brings up a lot of questions about how, and by whom, it will be run. To figure it out, Thompson has been evaluating — sometimes rather brusquely — his own top managers, as well as looking for new ones outside the company, such as a search for a chief marketing officer and other key positions.

Confused? Perhaps, but not for much longer, said multiple sources, as Thompson moves closer to delivering his answer to the what-Yahoo-is question.

Yahoo PR — by the way, it will not escape Thompson’s change machine, either! — declined comment.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120328/yahoo-geddon-leaders-to-debate-layoffs-asset-sales-search-deals-and-more-today-as-a-major-restructuring-looms/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20110920/youtube-voters-want-to-ask-rick-perry-about-government-spending/ http://allthingsd.com/20110920/youtube-voters-want-to-ask-rick-perry-about-government-spending/#comments Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:02:34 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=122411 YouTube and Fox News are hosting a debate for Republican presidential candidates on Thursday, and Google’s video site is asking viewers/users to submit questions. YouTube says that the largest number of queries are directed at Texas governor Rick Perry, followed by second-time candidate Ron Paul.

What’s on their minds? The economy, obviously.

Except not quite that obviously. In the fine print, YouTube notes that the chart above “excludes the “Other” category, which has received 26% of all questions, ranging from education to State’s rights.”

Disclosure: News Corp., which owns Fox News, also owns this Web site.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110920/youtube-voters-want-to-ask-rick-perry-about-government-spending/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20110315/grrrrr-tiger-mom-talks-about-internet-frenzy-around-book/ http://allthingsd.com/20110315/grrrrr-tiger-mom-talks-about-internet-frenzy-around-book/#comments Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:15:21 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=41606

Last night, BoomTown attended a Silicon Valley book party for Amy Chua, the author of one of this year’s most talked-about tomes: “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.”

Online chatter about it–or, more specifically, an essay Chua wrote in The Wall Street Journal related to the book, titled “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior”–quickly rocketed around the Web and mostly not in a good way for Chua.

In chat forums, on Twitter, on Facebook and all over the blogosphere, she was pilloried for her words about raising her children, which included:

Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

As it turns out, even though it surely sold a lot of books, Chua said the badly-titled essay and the ensuing heated debate on the Internet misconstrued and twisted what was meant to be a much more funny and complex memoir about parenting.

Here is an interview with Chua talking about her online experience and book’s heated reception:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110315/grrrrr-tiger-mom-talks-about-internet-frenzy-around-book/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20110201/beyond-the-search-box-the-white-pleather-honeypot-smackdown/ http://allthingsd.com/20110201/beyond-the-search-box-the-white-pleather-honeypot-smackdown/#comments Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:53:20 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=40083

Perusing AOL’s leaked damn-the-journalism-full-speed-ahead business plan, BoomTown was a little late to the Microsoft Bing event this morning called “Farsight: Beyond the Search Box.”

But things had certainly been cooking with gas when I walked into the meeting room at the University of San Francisco, which the organizers had decked out in white nubby rugs, white pleather couches and those white egg-shaped chairs found only in 1970s decor.

Schweeet!

First up was well-known investor and entrepreneur Peter Thiel, poo-poohing Microsoft’s prospects of ever making money in search.

“It’s difficult to produce a new search company,” said Thiel, noting that even with a growing market share it’s curtains for Bing, given the huge fixed costs. “As far as I can tell, it’s still not breaking even.”

Ouch!

By the way, Thiel sold semantic search engine Powerset to Microsoft for upward of $100 million in 2008 to help it, you know, get ahead in search.

Way to insult your money-bearing hosts!

Then, moderator Vivek Wadhwa harangued the panelists from Google, Microsoft and Blekko in the session “Who Will Win the Spam Wars?”

And they say I’m a snarky moderator! Wadhwa is snarktastic!

Wadhwa did not like any of it–not crappy content sites that sully Web search, not the efforts the companies were making to fix things, not the vision the trio had of the future.

And, by the way, Microsoft was not ever going to make money off all the company’s efforts.

Way to insult your hosts! I like this event!

Of course, what everyone was interested in was a smackdown between Google and Microsoft, given that the search giant accused the software giant of stealing its results today.

In an excellent, if exhaustive, post by Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan, Google said Bing was cheating by lifting its search results, which Google said it had proved via a “honeypot” sting operation.

“I’ve spent my career in pursuit of a good search engine,” Google’s Amit Singhal told Search Engine Land. “I’ve got no problem with a competitor developing an innovative algorithm. But copying is not innovation, in my book.”

The very presence of the word “honeypot” in any story about search algorithms is superb, in my book, even though this “controversy” is pretty much a he-said-he-said geek-off.

Google’s Matt Cutts kept up the cheater pressure at the Bing event, in a short debate with Microsoft’s Harry Shum, who was not having any of it.

“It’s not like we actually copy anything,” he said.

Translation: Actually, we do borrow, just like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg did to the Winklevii, resulting in a social networking behemoth that will soon take over all search and make this whole debate moot.

Microsoft is rubber, Google is glue. And Facebook, which was not present at the search event, is the real sticky honeypot.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110201/beyond-the-search-box-the-white-pleather-honeypot-smackdown/feed/ 3 http://allthingsd.com/20101217/amazon-cant-dent-itunes/ http://allthingsd.com/20101217/amazon-cant-dent-itunes/#comments Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:31:00 +0000 Ethan Smith and Geoffrey A. Fowler http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=34098 On the day Apple Inc. rolled out the Beatles’ catalog on its iTunes Store, Amazon.com Inc. fired back with a digital exclusive of its own: The latest album from rap-rocker Kid Rock–whose music still isn’t available on iTunes–for just $3.99.

Such steep discounts are a cornerstone of Amazon’s strategy to gain traction in a market in which iTunes remains the dominant player. At the same time, a debate has arisen among music labels about whether such discounts risk undermining the value of their products.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101217/amazon-cant-dent-itunes/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100813/decoding-googles-net-neutrality-proposal-blog-the-pixie-dust-free-edition/ http://allthingsd.com/20100813/decoding-googles-net-neutrality-proposal-blog-the-pixie-dust-free-edition/#comments Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:51:51 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=32137

The opening line of the classic J.M. Barrie book “Peter Pan” reads, “All children, except one, grow up.”

Actually, that one grew up, too, and now the whole Internet is angry at Google (GOOG) and taking shots, because of the Silicon Valley search giant’s recent joint public-policy proposal with Verizon (VZ) over net neutrality.

Many are claiming Google–in the most cynical of ways–sold out its long-standing commitment to the open Internet to make a corporately favorable deal.

Thus, Google–in this case, Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel–took to the corporate blog yesterday to explain it all away in a post titled “Facts About Our Network Neutrality Policy.”

It practically begs for translation, so BoomTown shall not disappoint:

Google wrote: Over the past few days there’s been a lot of discussion surrounding our announcement of a policy proposal on network neutrality we put together with Verizon. On balance, we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue, and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively.

We don’t expect everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal, but there has been a number of inaccuracies about it, and we do want to separate fact from fiction.

Translation: Wait, the hypnotic multicolored letters aren’t working anymore? What about the cute logos on the homepage–didja see our whimsical “Wizard of Oz” montage? Hey, our founders still wear wacky shoes!

And look over here at the Googleplex: Segways with wings and coconut-water lattes for all!

Okay, we’ll come clean: This band of Lost Boys–and Wendy who runs search–didn’t want to grow up, either.

But Sheryl Sandberg did an Indian talent raid and convinced Tinkerbell to take all her fairy dust to work on magical social-marketing features at Facebook. Also, Captain Hook and that alligator are working up some geo-location thing with the ticking clock over at Foursquare.

In other words, that’s Mr. Peter Man to you now.

Google wrote: MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.

FACT: Google has been the leading corporate voice on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years. No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet.

But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections–at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else–against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic.

With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all.

Translation: We caved. In fact, we spelunked. All right, we journeyed to the center of the earth. Second to the right and straight on till morning, times a google.

But it is not technically selling out, since we got no money in the deal. I mean, not yet.

That comes later, when we and Verizon control all the tolls on the private and exclusive Schminternet, named for Fearless Leader and CEO Eric Schmidt (pictured here), coming to you in 2020!

We’re not saying the solution is perfect. But we believe that a proposal that locks in key moneymaking fees for us is preferable to having to struggle later–like those losers at Microsoft (MSFT) do today–when the search business goes the way of boxed software.

Google wrote: MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.

FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself.

Here are some of the tangible benefits in our joint legislative proposal:

* Newly enforceable FCC standards
* Prohibitions against blocking or degrading wireline Internet traffic
* Prohibition against discriminating against wireline Internet traffic in ways that harm users or competition
* Presumption against all forms of prioritizing wireline Internet traffic
* Full transparency across wireline and wireless broadband platforms
* Clear FCC authority to adjudicate user complaints, and impose injunctions and fines against bad actors
* Verizon has agreed to voluntarily abide by these same requirements going forward–another first for a major communications provider. We hope this action will convince other broadband companies to follow suit.

Translation: Did you ever do the Hokey Pokey? Jockeying for political power in Washington is like that, except someone always loses an eye.

You put your eternal soul in,
You put your ethics out;
You put your corporate standards in,
And you shake them all about.
You do the Hokey-Pokey,
And you turn yourself around.
That’s what it’s all about!

Which is why they say you should never watch sausage being made.

Google wrote: MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.

Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.

In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Google helped persuade the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal.

Translation: By transparency, we mean a backroom deal so covered in the fog of compromise that it was like the Smoke Monster in “Lost.”

And you know what happened when he (she? it?) showed up. Not pretty.

Neither was the fact that we had to throw wireless–the most promising of networks–under the bus right now. While there is likely to be some crushing of competition and mangling of the bones of this little baby, you can be sure Congress can always step in to protect consumers’ interests with regard to wireless broadband.

In fact, Congress just hired Kate and Jon Gosselin to give parenting tips on how not to completely take advantage of the wired Internet’s most valuable offspring.

Google wrote: MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.

FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability–so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself.

We have a number of key protections in the proposal to protect the public Internet:

* First, the broadband provider must fully comply with the consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards governing its Internet access service before it could pursue any of these other online service opportunities.

* Second, these services must be “distinguishable in purpose and scope” from Internet access, so that they cannot over time supplant the best effort Internet.

* Third, the FCC retains its full capacity to monitor these various service offerings, and to intervene where necessary to ensure that robust, unfettered broadband capacity is allocated to Internet access.

So we believe there would be more than adequate tools in place to help guard against the “cannibalization” of the public Internet.

Translation: Yes, the very same government that protected its citizens from the sub-prime mortgage mess by monitoring those giant, risk-mad banks so well.

The same government that was making sure oil giants like BP adhered to strict safety standard for its offshore wells.

The same government…well, you get the general idea, but you should have no fear of cannibals.

Of sharkish telcom companies, yes. Of man-eating lions from the cable business, certainly.

But of multicolored, letter-decorated piranhas who look harmless with their big squishy balls and organic guava smoothies but will cut you as soon as you stick one consumer finger in the digital pond?

Let’s just say: Don’t go in the water.

Google wrote: MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.

FACT: This is a policy proposal–not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed.

Translation: Rachel, are you in London or back in Mountain View? Please ring us up asap, as you need to come up with some fancy new talk. I don’t think they are buying this policy-proposal-not-a-business-deal pablum.

In fact, I am even giggling every time I write it.

Google wrote: MYTH: Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet.

FACT: Our two companies are proposing a legislative framework to the Congress for its consideration. We hope all stakeholders will weigh in and help shape the framework to move us all forward. We’re not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could–or should–decide the future of this issue. We’re simply trying to offer a proposal to help resolve a debate which has largely stagnated after five years.

It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers–and the American public–to take it from here. Whether you favor our proposal or not, we urge you to take your views directly to your Senators and Representatives in Washington.

We hope this helps address some of the inaccuracies that have appeared about our proposal. We’ll provide updates as the situation continues to develop.

Translation: Indeed, two corporations are not legislating the future of the Internet.

In point of fact, there were at least a half-dozen of us on the G5 on the way back from divvying up the Web in D.C.

And we’re not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could–or should–decide the future of this issue.

We are planning on including at least six or seven more businesses, since it will cost an awful lot of money to peddle all that influence in D.C.

Of course, that Mark Zuckerberg over at Facebook seems to be holding out and even criticizing our Verizon bear hug.

That kid has some guts all right–but he can’t live in Neverland forever.

At some point, you’ve got to grow up. You can’t clap your hands and believe you can fly. Even pixie dust eventually runs out.

And that’s something we at Google know very, very well by now.

And until the magic returns, please relish the incomparable Mary Martin in the famous stage version of “Peter Pan” singing “Never Never Land.” As Peter Pan described himself, “I’m youth, I’m joy. I’m a little bird that has broken out of the egg.” Martin is all that and more:

"Never Never Land"
Uploaded by computergirl07. – Music videos, artist interviews, concerts and more.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100813/decoding-googles-net-neutrality-proposal-blog-the-pixie-dust-free-edition/feed/ 7 http://allthingsd.com/20100621/dear-nyt-oh-home-back-in-the-range-of-wireless-access/ http://allthingsd.com/20100621/dear-nyt-oh-home-back-in-the-range-of-wireless-access/#comments Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:06:56 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=29531

BoomTown has finally dragged all my various and sundry bags of gadgetry back to San Francisco after a week of it sitting mostly useless on a ranch in Wyoming.

However did I manage that?–at least according to a recent slightly alarmed series of articles in the New York Times (NYT) about how technology is messing with our inner chi.

Noted the Times, which has also been urging readers to unplug and then tell the tale:

“These technologies have become so constant in many of our lives we can’t see ourselves without them even as the impact of them on our personal and professional lives–and even our brains–is being discovered.”

Memo to the NYT editors: I survived the whole analog encounter just fine.

I was able to read a real book easily, sit quietly contemplating the cosmos and maintain regular eye contact with my children, even though I really also like being jacked into the matrix 24/7/365.

A brief rundown of how I did it:

Mobile Phone: My Apple (AAPL) iPhone has exactly zero bars at the Spotted Horse Ranch, which is located south of Jackson, Wyoming.

So the coverage was pretty much about what I get in San Francisco–except it was crystal clear when I was riding Lefty the horse on a mesa. I called my mom to say so.

But, in all, fewer than five calls all week.

I did post my location to Foursquare once from the Million Dollar Cowboy Bar, because you kind of have to do that when you are sitting on a saddle at a bar drinking a beer.

Mostly, my smartphone went dumb.

Internet: The Wi-Fi went in and out unless I was in direct line of the office where the hub was located. So, I did not do much of that either, although I tweeted now and then and made sure I was up on whatever Lindsay Lohan was doing (making trouble as usual!).

But, since it was so slow, there was little Web surfing–which is pretty much how I get most of my news these days. Thus, I was forced to crack open the newspaper, and it worked well, although it still leaves my hands grimy.

Email was a lot easier, of course, and I did some, although only a tiny fraction of my usual, which is hundreds of emails a day.

Other devices: I retired the Flip camera, even to shoot videos, as I was taking to the trails daily. Let’s just say that horses irk a lot easier than Internet moguls, and I did not want to get bucked.

On the other hand, the iPad was a delight to have, whether doing crosswords at the creek, playing air hockey with Louie, piano with Alex or just doodling. Video and music playing was also a welcome feature.

I thought I would miss the online element of the tablet, since 3G did not work where I was and it was not easily able to find the faint wireless signal.

Not so. Apps are really versatile, and it is easy to imagine everyone having some kind of loaded tablet device from a variety of manufacturers on vacation.

Thus, I guess I was not truly unplugged, even though I was insulated from the constant pinging of my usual life. Does this mean my brain has warped to crave tech and think small thoughts?

Then again, I also did not churn my own butter or rope my own cattle for hamburgers, and somehow those are not an issue anyone has with modern life.

In other words, I really wish it were not an either/or debate over technology, as it always seems to degenerate into. We can all live both offline and online without having to denigrate one or the other, as if it were some noisy Western shootout.

Oh, they re-created one of those every night in Jackson, which you can watch here on a Webcam aimed at Town Square and its antler arches.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100621/dear-nyt-oh-home-back-in-the-range-of-wireless-access/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100405/boomtown-turns-twit-again-and-talks-about-the-apple-ipad-launch-paywalls-and-whither-embargoes/ http://allthingsd.com/20100405/boomtown-turns-twit-again-and-talks-about-the-apple-ipad-launch-paywalls-and-whither-embargoes/#comments Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:00:27 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=26191

BoomTown just made it through the snow-choked Donner Pass in the Sierras of Northern California, so excuse my laxity in posting this episode of “This Week in Tech,” the very fine Leo Laporte-helmed online chitchat show done on Sundays.

I appeared in this one, which, though posted in the middle of last week, was from the Sunday before, and included fellow guests John C. Dvorak, Ryan Block and Owen Stone.

It has a lot going on, including predictions about the Apple (AAPL) iPad launch, online content paywalls by News Corp. (NWS) and a lively debate related to the Twitter fracas I was involved in over inaccurate tweets about embargo-breaking, which turned into an interesting discussion on media in the blogging age.

Here’s the full video:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100405/boomtown-turns-twit-again-and-talks-about-the-apple-ipad-launch-paywalls-and-whither-embargoes/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090325/the-facebook-generation-vs-the-fortune-500/ http://allthingsd.com/20090325/the-facebook-generation-vs-the-fortune-500/#comments Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:14:20 +0000 Gary Hamel http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=9858 The experience of growing up online will profoundly shape the workplace expectations of “Generation F”–the Facebook Generation. At a minimum, they’ll expect the social environment of work to reflect the social context of the Web, rather than as is currently the case, a mid-20th-century Weberian bureaucracy.

If your company hopes to attract the most creative and energetic members of Gen F, it will need to understand these Internet-derived expectations, and then reinvent its management practices accordingly. Sure, it’s a buyer’s market for talent right now, but that won’t always be the case–and in the future, any company that lacks a vital core of Gen F employees will soon find itself stuck in the mud.

With that in mind, I compiled a list of 12 work-relevant characteristics of online life. These are the post-bureaucratic realities that tomorrow’s employees will use as yardsticks in determining whether your company is “with it” or “past it.” In assembling this short list, I haven’t tried to catalog every salient feature of the Web’s social milieu, only those that are most at odds with the legacy practices found in large companies.

1. All ideas compete on an equal footing.
On the Web, every idea has the chance to gain a following–or not, and no one has the power to kill off a subversive idea or squelch an embarrassing debate. Ideas gain traction based on their perceived merits, rather than on the political power of their sponsors.

Read the rest of this post

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090325/the-facebook-generation-vs-the-fortune-500/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20081006/sarah-palin-and-tina-fey-a-perfect-marriage/ http://allthingsd.com/20081006/sarah-palin-and-tina-fey-a-perfect-marriage/#comments Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:47:24 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=4836

The third time is charming, in fact, as has been every appearance on "Saturday Night Live" by Tina Fey impersonating Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

This one, of course, is on last week's debate between Palin and Democratic VP candidate, Sen. Joe Biden, with Queen Latifah also doing a perfect double-taking turn as moderator Gwen Ifill.

Whatever happens in the election, of the many impersonations on "SNL," Fey's of Palin is a classic, which started with a striking resemblance and has turned into a perfect union of characters.

Here is the first, with Fey and Amy Poehler as Sen. Hillary Clinton and Fey with Poehler playing CBS's Katie Couric.

Here's the new video:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20081006/sarah-palin-and-tina-fey-a-perfect-marriage/feed/ 2 http://allthingsd.com/20081002/kung-fu-election-biden-versus-palin/ http://allthingsd.com/20081002/kung-fu-election-biden-versus-palin/#comments Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:25:20 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=4776

BoomTown admits herewith that I am officially a teenage boy, given how much I really like Atom’s Kung-Fu Election site, an online fighting game for the general election.

In advance of tonight’s much-anticipated debate between the vice-presidential candidates–Democratic Sen. Joe Biden and Republican Gov. Sarah Palin–here’s a video of them duking it out digitally in hiiii-ya style.

Of course, Palin gets the Xena-Warrior-Princess look with a hockey stick and gun as weapons, while the sharp-tongued Biden gets a big sword and is dressed like some refugee from “Shogun.”

Let’s hope the verbal sparring to come is as gripping.

Here’s the video:

Funny Videos | Funny Cartoons | More Video Clips

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20081002/kung-fu-election-biden-versus-palin/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20080519/lieberman-youtube/ http://allthingsd.com/20080519/lieberman-youtube/#comments Mon, 19 May 2008 22:46:44 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20080519/lieberman-youtube/ Add Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) to the list of folks who complain YouTube is neither thorough nor expedient in removing objectionable content from its servers, whether it be in violation of copyright or “good taste.”

Last week, the U.S. senator sent a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt decrying YouTube as a clearinghouse for terrorist propaganda videos and calling upon Google to remove them. “… Islamist terrorist organizations use YouTube to disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers and provide weapons training–activities that are all essential to terrorist activity,” Lieberman, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, wrote. “According to testimony received by our committee, the online content produced by al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organizations can play a significant role in the process of radicalization, the end point of which is the planning and execution of a terrorist attack. YouTube also, unwittingly, permits Islamist terrorist groups to maintain an active, pervasive and amplified voice, despite military setbacks or successful operations by the law enforcement and intelligence communities.”

Lieberman would like Google (GOOG) to smoke these YouTube terrorists out of their holes. To that end, he provided Schmidt with a list of offensive videos. Some featured gratuitous violence or hate speech and were removed. But many more featured legal non-violent, non-hate speech. These YouTube refused to remove because they don’t violate its Community Guidelines.

“While we respect and understand [Lieberman's] views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view,” YouTube said in a post to its company blog. “We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds. Of course, users are always free to express their disagreement with a particular video on the site, by leaving comments or their own response video. That debate is healthy.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20080519/lieberman-youtube/feed/ 0